## End of 1912

In England, Holland, America (USA), even in Germany (where the conservative party of the Junkers occupies a special, exceptional position as a purely class party), we see that the struggle between the two major bourgeois parties—as a rule, between the "liberal" party and the "conservative" or "clerical" party—becomes all the more acute, and the battle cries all the louder, the more the real opposition of interests between them disappears, and consequently their antagonism consists of ideological slogans stemming from past history. He who understands Marxism schematically and therefore sees in political parties only representatives of the interests of bourgeois groups will here rack his brains over a riddle: where one would expect that these parties, confronted by the threatening proletariat, should merge into one reactionary mass, there, on the contrary, the split appears to become more profound and broader. This phenomenon is explained simply by the instinctive feeling of the bourgeoisie that violence alone will accomplish nothing against the proletariat and that it is infinitely, far more important to mislead the proletariat and split it by means of ideological slogans. Therefore in Austria, the national struggle between different bourgeoisies will flare up on ever larger scales the more it becomes devoid of substance; the more the gentlemen hide behind the scenes in dividing state power, the more furiously they attack each other over national trifles in public debate. Previously each bourgeoisie strove to unite the proletariat of its nation and lead it after itself in order to have the possibility of struggling with greater force against the national enemy; now, on the contrary, the struggle against the national enemy must serve to unite the proletariat around bourgeois parties and thereby prevent the creation of its international unity. The very same role which in other countries is played by the battle cries: "Here—Christianity!", "Here—freedom of conscience!", in order to distract the workers' attention from those social questions in which their class community and class antagonism toward the bourgeoisie would manifest themselves—this very same role in Austria will increasingly be played by national battle cries.

Consequently, we can scarcely count on the practical solution of national disputes which we have proposed ever being implemented, precisely for the reason that this solution would make the national struggle itself devoid of substance... National antagonisms will undermine the proletarian army only so long as socialist class consciousness is weakly developed. In the end, class struggle simply transcends the bounds of national dispute and develops further. In reality, the fatal force of nationalism will be broken not through our proposal concerning national autonomy, the implementation of which is not in our power, but only through the strengthening of class consciousness.

Therefore it would be an error if we directed all our strength toward conducting a "positive national policy" and staked everything on this card, on the implementation of our program on nationalities as a preliminary condition for the development of class struggle. This programmatic demand, like the majority of our practical demands of the current moment, serves only to show how easily we would solve these questions if we already had power, and in order to make all the more sharply evident against the background of the reasonableness of our solutions the unreasonableness of bourgeois slogans. But while the bourgeoisie rules, our reasonable solution will of course remain on paper. Our policy and our agitation can be directed only toward always and only conducting class struggle, awakening class feelings, so that workers, through clear understanding of reality, become insensitive to the slogans of nationalism.

Translated from the German

# REMARKS ON PANNEKOEK'S PAMPHLET
# "CLASS STRUGGLE AND NATION"
## [End of 1912]

A. Pannekoek: "Klassenkampf und Nation".
Reichenberg. 1912.

—**Minuses of the excellent pamphlet:**

1) Diegenism—thoughts attributed to matter!! (p. 14).

2) Concerning religion (Privatsache*) passim** in an opportunistic sense Privatsache is interpreted.

3) Concerning Poland: "restoration of it is utopian" (p. 40). Underestimated the distinction between Eastern Europe and "Western Europe" (which—passim—is correctly distinguished on the basis of the criterion that nation here = state).

4) "Cultural-national autonomy" (S. 51 in the middle; 2nd paragraph, lines 5–6 from the top of the paragraph). Poor. Did not understand the significance of general-political democratic demands in distinction from national ones.

# OUTLINE OF CHAPTER VII OF OTTO BAUER'S BOOK
# "THE NATIONAL QUESTION AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY"
## [1912]

556:
557:
558:

Resolution of the Brünn Congress of 1899 (NB) VI and "draft" of O. Bauer (much worse).

**National organization of Austrian social-democracy introduced only in 1907 (congress in Wimberg).**

"Workers of each nation should enjoy national autonomy in the party not at all because social-democracy strives for national autonomy in the state." (NB)

Why then? Three reasons:

(1) ("On account of" (agitation in different languages)

(1) "the party body naturally divides into groups by language, that is, into nationally-differentiated groups"

(2) (Then—different bourgeois parties in different nations (2nd reason).

(3) (3rd reason: "socialist cultural community within each nation"—different connection "with the entire national history"

Ergo "necessary organizational principle": "division of the party into national groups".

[not proven: Caucasus; Polish Social-Democracy; the Latvian region].

559–558: First the Wimberg decision, then in the sense of a united party with national groups. Now it turns out all: union of **independent national parties** (559).

560: "**The organization of Austrian social-democracy has remained to this day a contradictory social formation:** at the top of the party—in the general party congress and in the general representative body—we have unified organs that make decisions by majority vote, decisions binding on comrades of all nations; **at the bottom,** however, in the electoral district, in the region, we have independent national organizations, acting independently of each other, having no permanent common organ" (560).

NB

"Since 1904, part of the Czech activists of the trade union movement demands the principled implementation of 'national autonomy' also in trade unions" (563).

"Without discipline of the minority, no trade union struggle, no democratic organization is possible. And from this obligation the minority is not freed even where the majority is composed of comrades of another nationality. Consequently, local and practical contradictions cannot justify national splits in trade unions—they cannot justify, but can explain" (566)...

(Double bookkeeping of unions and party!)

"Where the masses of workers simultaneously participate both in social-democratic and in trade unions, there exists a close connection between the party and the unions" (567). Indeed! ... "In Austria the unity of party and unions has been fuller and closer to this day than in any other country" (568).

... "Thus, owing to the progressive disintegration of Austrian social-democracy into independent national parties, the tendency inevitably arises to implement national autonomy within trade unions as well" (568).

NB

And O. Bauer "concocts" a way out: international economic matters, centralization of administration!